opinionfandomcom-20200213-history
OBAMA A THREAT TO MILITARY STRENGTH AND SAFTEY
by Jaxhawk A PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD BE BAD FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE http://bp0.blogger.com/_sHBfjVGSFJA/R8beUudussI/AAAAAAAACbA/1xkUMXeHXvE/s1600-h/sacrifice.jpg http://bp2.blogger.com/_sHBfjVGSFJA/R8beVOdustI/AAAAAAAACbI/Rjm0yN-9fEo/s1600-h/winston.gif http://bp3.blogger.com/_sHBfjVGSFJA/R8beVedusuI/AAAAAAAACbQ/TdHze5fdc8U/s1600-h/candidates08.jpg Tuesday night during the Democrat candidates debate, Senator Obama revealed his animus for the military systems deployed and under development. Among other things, Obama talks about slowing development of "future combat systems." That will sure scare our avowed enemies! And he talks about cutting investment in "unproven" missile-defense weapons. I guess his handlers forgot to tell him about the successful shoot down of the falling satellite that was larger than a train car!. Yes, one of those "unproven" missiles shot down a falling satellite just last week? Unproven? ? ? The real statement that should alarm all Americans who are concerned about Our security, and unless you are an embedded terrorist, you all should be concerned. Was his dismissal of the future development of weapons systems. This I believe, is a real threat to Our national security. Had previous Presidents taken this approach, we would not have stealth bombers, laser guided smart bombs, and night vision capability, to name just a few of the weapons now available to our troops. Weapons that make them more combat capable, but also cause less loss of life for civilians from collateral damage. In an August 27, 2007 article by Joe Gandelman, Obama's response to questions about fighting terrorism was stated this way. Asked by The Associated Press after a breakfast with constituents whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, Obama replied: "There’s been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that’s not a hypothetical that I’m going to discuss". When asked whether his answer also applied to the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, he said it did. Thus if he was President the Iranians, Syrians, Russian, Chinese and North Koreans know they can do what ever they want in the way of aggression with no possible threat of nuclear retaliation. WE lost Korea, and Vietnam because the leaders of this Country publicly claimed they would never use nuclear weapons for fear of a Russian retaliation. The negative media led by Red Walter "C" was a factor also in our country's lack of will to win. Now we have a man who wants to occupy the Oval Office with one hand tied behind his back, while the tyrants and despots have no such compunctions about their nuclear capability. Iran is a prime suspect to use "nukes" if and when he gets them. And don't give me the old lame argument that using nuclear weapons is immoral. Terrorism and despotic tyrants are not moral and neither is radical Islam. The left has for too long used their arguments about the immorality of this country. The immorality comes when you commit men and women to die fighting, if you don't intend to win! The real immorality is in the removal of the threat that would keep tyrants from attacking us with their nuclear weapons, by taking the "nuke" off the table even before he is in the Oval Office. Besides the question was about " tactical nuclear weapons ", not the type bombs that were dropped on Japan! There is a huge difference! A very wise Winston Churchill said this: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival"...Winston Churchill __NOEDITSECTION__ Category: Opinions Category: Opinions by User Jaxhawk Category: February 28, 2008 Category: February 2008 Category: OPINION Opinions Category: OBAMA Opinions Category: MILITARY Opinions Category: WEAPONS Opinions Category: THREATS Opinions From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki. From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki.